Breaking the chains, winning the games, and saving Western Civilization.

Friday, December 16, 2011

They really do want to tear you down

For many years, I was vaguely aware that women appeared to instinctively desire to tear men down. This was primarily due to the frequent belittling I saw wives and girlfriends meting out to their husbands and boyfriends. I was largely impervious to it myself throughout my youth, mostly because I tended to favor dating women who ranged from barely self-aware to slightly above-average intelligence. Let's face it, no matter how hot she is, very few women are seriously going to try to tear down a man who has an 80-point IQ advantage over them... and the arrogance to match.*

But it was quite normal for my highly intelligent female friends to attempt to "put me in my place", which is a very telling expression when you think about it. One of my favorite female friends and I had a pattern throughout high school and college wherein she would directly challenge me in a very direct manner, often in public, only to get brutally slapped down. Again. This would upset her and she would stop speaking to me for a few weeks, after which time everything would return to normal. This didn't bother me in the slightest; she is a wonderful woman and I still regard her as the sister I never had.

But even if this treatment was seldom directed at me, it was still disturbing to witness the way in which so many women who had barely lifted a finger in thirty years to support themselves regularly attempted to cut down the very men who paid their bills and made their comfortable upper middle class lifestyles possible. It didn't matter if the male accomplishment was in business, sports, or hobbydom, it was quite normal for the woman in his life to belittle it at every opportunity.

The reason that women resist and reject advice to flatter men is basically an issue of power. You wouldn’t know it from reading manosphere sites, but men, especially if white and educated, get the majority of perks in the world. They get the best jobs. They occupy the top of pretty much every occupational field, fields of women’s interests included (fashion, beauty, cooking, media). They make the most money. They’re more implicitly trusted in matters of business. They get to have sex with tons of people and receive very little judgment for it. They get to marry women young enough to be their daughters and have kids at age 70. They get to be funny, outrageous, outspoken, and wild, and people just chuckle affectionately. (Women who are funny, outrageous, outspoken, and wild, on the other hand, just get called bitches, sluts, and bulldykes.) They get to do most of the exciting and interesting things in this world, and they tend to think they know everything about everything. And generally they don’t pay much of a social price for getting fat and dressing dumpy.

Meanwhile, women are expected to be quiet and have babies, always be up for sex, never gain any weight, and never have an opinion that contradicts a man’s. Given these circumstances, it’s pretty easy to see why a modern woman balks at making a man feel good about himself.

Translation: the one thing that Freud got right was penis envy. And while Haley is obviously cognizant of the fact that this is self-destructive behavior for the woman who seeks happy and positive relationships with the men in her life, what Fred Reed calls "the chip" is nevertheless readily apparent. She also misses the point, which is that the primary reason men have most of those perks is because they have earned them. For some reason that I have never been able to understand, few women find it natural to grasp the distinction between effort and accomplishment.

There is also an amount of solipsistic projection here. For example, I don't know any men who are the least bit troubled by a woman harboring an opinion that contradicts his, but very few women indeed can handle their opinion being contradicted by anyone, male or female.

But for men, it is important to understand that very few women truly understand the concept of being on your side, right or wrong, the way your male friends do. (The female version has it reversed; if she is on your side, then you are right.) And even when she is for you, she may simultaneously be against you for the various reasons that Haley lists. Furthermore, the lower down the hierarchy you are, the more difficult it will be for you to deal with the challenges this mindset poses.

* I'm aware of what Roissy writes about intelligence being a handicap, but he himself tends to belie the notion being a hard rule. Remember, genuine contempt = female catnip. The main reason smart young men tend to be omegas and gammas is because they a) pedestalize the opposite sex, and b) place little social value on their own intelligence. And the lack of physical exercise plus not showering regularly doesn't help.

39 comments:

This post is pretty much dead on. My wife used to be on my side. She loved that I was smarter than most people, and knew more than most people about anything I bothered to know. She also loved that I knew a little bit about most things, so I could flow in conversations on most topics. When she reached the point she no longer wanted to be my wife, she stopped being on my side. When other people would say something about me being smart, and it was great I could help them with some weird thing, she would respond with something like "He isn't that smart." or "Yea, if he is so smart then why ...." She began to butt into conversations I was having and just blurt out "that isn't true", picking on some minor detail of what I was saying, usually missing the point. I had to choose to either ignore it and keep things civil or call her out on being a bitch. Towards the end I felt a lot better just making her feel stupid instead of me trying to back pedal and explain for her ego's sake.

She began to butt into conversations I was having and just blurt out "that isn't true", picking on some minor detail of what I was saying, usually missing the point. I had to choose to either ignore it and keep things civil or call her out on being a bitch. Towards the end I felt a lot better just making her feel stupid instead of me trying to back pedal and explain for her ego's sake.

Never, ever, let a woman get away with this sort of behavior. Or a man, for that matter. They do it in social and/or business situations where it is difficult for you to deal with it on purpose; once you make it clear that you will not hesitate to respond, they will usually knock it off.

If a woman is interrupting a story in a social setting, one effective technique that is both annoying to others and embarrassing to the interrupter is to simply stop telling it when interrupted and tell them "since you're the story police, you can finish it from here." It makes them look stupid to everyone else and they know it.

This is particularly effective when the woman can't tell stories very well.

I wonder if this chick has thought about the fact that 100% of female resentment at male success is taken out on unsuccessful males.

That's not at all true. I am referring, in large part, to resentment being taken out on successful men, in some cases very successful men, who have been insufficiently dominant within their relationships.

Keep in mind the expression "no man is a hero to his valet". It applies to women too.

Highlights: She is forced to continue stripping because 'there are no jobs for young people at the moment' One in five lapdancers are students, NUS warns NUS says students turning to 'informal' sector for cash Emma Green was paid £200-a-week to strip for men on webca

I can't stand the Daily Mail but here in this article interview is a lovely demonstration on what the end result of all that Marxist-Feminist movement fought for in the 60's has led to and the rationalizing present in the article by the subject.

I see this as a variation on the projection of character traits many are prone to.

A woman will engage in behavior towards her husband/boyfriend she herself wants done to her.

For some reason the woman interprets the man's behavior as showing a lowering or lack of interest in her. She wants the negs, the push/pull, more alpha, but doesn't know how to ask for it. She may not even consciously know what she wants, she just knows she wants something to change.

She attempts to be an agent of change for the better and fails in her intention. I know I've heard that one before.

It would be easy to buy into the "she just turned evil" explanation. But it's just too easy. If there is one place where the admonition to "man up" is appropriate it is here.

One thing I've noticed is that Roissy does not appear to advocate the kind of direct, unambiguous displays of contempt that you (VD) do. Quote: "Your goal is to increase your status through confident flirting, not lower it through sarcastic put-downs".

In any case, why do you think he thinks intelligence is a handicap? By his SMV test, having a genius-level IQ is as bad as being literally retarded. What's up with that?

I have a friend who's wive use to belittle mercilessly in front of me and others while playing micro-armor (WWII wargaming with scaled models on a large table or the floor). This was years ago and always pissed me off, but since I had no understanding of Game (the general underlying concepts since this was before it was called that) and seldom even dated at that point I felt like my opinion would carry little weight. I did hear from a mutual friend that he had made it clear in her presence that was unacceptable. I think he was banned from the house for a time afterward. The man getting berated? A bachelors degree in computer engineering from University of Michigan, a MBA from another, making excellent money (a VP in a outsource/contract firm). The wife: maybe an associates degree, doubt she ever earned more than 15k on her own.

Going forward with my own life I was able to use her as a "lead" standard. She has mellowed a bit since she was identified and bi-polar and received medication, but I would never have stayed with a woman like her long enough to find out medication was required.

One thing I've noticed is that Roissy does not appear to advocate the kind of direct, unambiguous displays of contempt that you (VD) do. Quote: "Your goal is to increase your status through confident flirting, not lower it through sarcastic put-downs".

In any case, why do you think he thinks intelligence is a handicap? By his SMV test, having a genius-level IQ is as bad as being literally retarded. What's up with that?"

I'd say part of it is that with a higher level IQ you have a broader context for many subjects. You draw different relations between things than people of lesser IQs, who without the broader knowledge base can't make the same correlations. At least that is what I claim when my wife says no one understands my humor. We both know I have a higher IQ, but I don't rub her nose in it and it is one of the things to which she was attracted.

"You wouldn’t know it from reading manosphere sites, but men, especially if white and educated, get the majority of perks in the world. They get the best jobs. They occupy the top of pretty much every occupational field, fields of women’s interests included (fashion, beauty, cooking, media). They make the most money."

As some commented there:1) Because they earned it2) Maybe if they are Alphas

I have and have had women bosses. Even the more competent promoted women less competent than me, primarily because they had seniority but also because they were women. I paid out of my own pocket to get additional training that got me on a track out of her area and promoted. Being short, an introvert and not an Alpha, I have pretty much never been "given" anything just because I am a white male. Just the opposite, which is one reason I am working on improving myself.

OK, true enough, there are successful men who can't keep the upper hand. She's not talking about them. She's never even met a man who's at the top of his field. They are an abstraction to her. Their actual nature is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

"They occupy the top of pretty much every occupational field"

George Clooney, sitting there at the top of his field, may well have a swelled head, but she's not busily hectoring George Clooney and telling him he's always wrong. She's hectoring her HUSBAND and telling HIM he's always wrong.

But her husband isn't George Clooney. He's just some poor ordinary bastard who married a bitch. His head wasn't all that swelled to begin with. If it were, he wouldn't put up with her shit, and she wouldn't ask him to.

If she met George Clooney, do you really think she would try to deflate his swelled head?

Honestly?

We both know that women treat men that way for reasons precisely opposite to the ones she gives.

And on and on. There's so much bullshit and pathology and projection in woman's deranged little rant, it beggars description. Almost every sentence is preposterous in its own unique way.

In any case, why do you think he thinks intelligence is a handicap? By his SMV test, having a genius-level IQ is as bad as being literally retarded.

You just answered your own question. And in general, Roissy is correct. The more intelligent you are, the more you can see other options and subject yourself to analysis paralysis. This comes off as indecisive and extremely BETA. It is very hard for a rational man to be irrationally self-confident, after all.

However, when a woman encounters a highly intelligent man who is decisive, unapologetic about his intelligence, and regards her as being barely one step above a baboon, she can't help but attempt to prove to him that she is not.

It's just another DHV + super neg, really.

"Your goal is to increase your status through confident flirting, not lower it through sarcastic put-downs".

Who said anything about sarcastic put-downs? That is bitchy and gamma. It is primarily about genuine self-confidence and attitude.

Remember, the woman who goes away muttering "who does he think he is anyway" is a woman who is attracted. Talk to a woman about the men that she's known before that she found unusually irksome at their first meeting. Chances are, she ended up having sex with him, or at least wanted to.

There was a conversation at Roissy's blog where a woman accused him of hitting on her because of his "mocking" of her which she believed to be a form of negging. The quote I mentioned in my last post - "Dear God, no. Your goal is to raise your status through confident flirting, not lower it with sarcastic put-downs" was his response to that.

Was his mocking gamma? No. It was not a product of bitterness, it was genuine contempt. You would probably say that his attitude was attractive to the woman, but that definitely doesn't appear to be the approach he advocates in pick-up attempts.

There definitely does appear to be a difference between your views on what a man's attitude should be on his initial approach to a woman. Roissy (and most PUAs) - playful teasing. You - derisive disdain.

I think a truly intelligent man runs into trouble because he insists on women behaving intelligently themselves. Or at least with some common sense - instead of trying to play drama queen, as too many of them do.

There definitely does appear to be a difference between your views on what a man's attitude should be on his initial approach to a woman. Roissy (and most PUAs) - playful teasing. You - derisive disdain.

Sure. I think the difference is likely related to the difference in perspective. Roissy is usually talking about a woman who is a specific and singular objective. I am usually talking about an approach to the opposite sex in general.

I mean, let's face it, I didn't turn on what you describe as derisive disdain simply for the women I found attractive. I imagine a combination of the two approaches could work rather well. Start with derisive disdain and then switch to playful teasing when it makes sense.

As females, one of the earliest and most painful lessons we learn is that other females will turn on you, unpredictably, and in a flash. Males, on the other hand, are steady and loyal for the most part. It seems like a lot of females cope by ingratiating themselves to other females. That seemed to me a losing proposition, so I decided that the company of males was vastly preferable and turned into a tomboy. I grew to like men very much as an adult. Women, not so much.

AND YET, in spite of all this, I still tended to treat men rather shabbily when I was in my teens and 20s. It was pure narcissism -- I was very pretty and could get away with it, especially as most of the men I spent time with were far too grateful just to be with a pretty girl. I was never conscious of a desire to tear these guys down, but I still did it. I finally got some of my own back from a really crappy guy, and it taught me a lesson. Later, when I converted to Christianity, it altered my perspective on men. God commanded that we respect our husbands, and I take that very seriously.

Of course, having a strong husband who elicits respect greatly facilitates that.

After converting, I began to recall that the virtue of loyalty is what made me prefer males over females in the first place, and I aspired to it. My policy ever since has been to NEVER disrespect my husband in public.

If a woman begins with a favorable attitude toward men and internalizes her Christian faith, she can, to a significant degree, be self-motivated to overcome her natural tendency to be an undermining bitch. But it can't be said often enough: having a strong husband who elicits respect greatly facilitates that.

"There is also an amount of solipsistic projection here. For example, I don't know any men who are the least bit troubled by a woman harboring an opinion that contradicts his, but very few women indeed can handle their opinion being contradicted by anyone, male or female."

No joke. I love watching women's brains look as though they're going to pop when you tell them:

- women need to submit to their husbands- women don't belong in the military- women are pathetic to use forced association via "sexual discrimination laws" to get their way

"Remember, the woman who goes away muttering "who does he think he is anyway" is a woman who is attracted. Talk to a woman about the men that she's known before that she found unusually irksome at their first meeting. Chances are, she ended up having sex with him, or at least wanted to. "

100% agreement. This is how my parents met, at a John Birch Society summer camp in 1974. My dad was one of the speakers at the camp, and my mom was one of the campers. He was able to stay in an AC cabin, while the campers had to stay in tents. The first time they met, she acted like a groupie, and he paid no attention to her. The second time they met, she wagged her finger in his face, saying "Who do you think you are, getting to stay in an air conditioned cabin, while we suffer in the heat?"

The reason that women resist and reject advice to flatter men is basically an issue of power...

If a woman feels this way about men in general, then why even bother with having a relationship with a man? Would not such a woman be much happier not being in any kind of relationship with a man in the first place? Why put yourself out in the first place?

Why would any man desire any relationship with a woman with this kind of attitude? Personally, I cannot imagine any kind of relationship with someone of this attitude. Life is short and difficult enough without having to put up with this kind of crap. I consider it an irrational choice for any man to enter into any kind of relationship with this kind of woman.

If a woman feels this way about men in general, then why even bother with having a relationship with a man? Would not such a woman be much happier not being in any kind of relationship with a man in the first place? Why put yourself out in the first place?

social dominance, social dominance, social dominance.

you'll note that Gloria Steinem ( who said, "A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle" ) got married ANYWAYS.

a woman who does not have a man is often assumed ( rightly or wrongly ) to be incapable of GETTING a man. this lowers her status with other women, or at least makes it much harder for her to rise to her 'proper' level.

"Let's face it, no matter how hot she is, very few women are seriously going to try to tear down a man who has an 80-point IQ advantage over them... and the arrogance to match.*

truer words have never been spoken. great post Sir. want to make a pretty woman tingle; ask her this when she states an opinion: WHY? most men NEVER ask a woman that. personally i think it's hilarious to mess with a woman in this manner.

Women do not care so much how smart a man is or what his IQ is but what they do care about is what it can do for her. Intelligence, unlike physical prowess, cannot be easily observable by its self and therefore cannot be converted into a woman’s status elevator without an identifiable proxy behind it. When a man’s intelligence is converted into wealth, fame, or power then it becomes valuable to women.

""(It IS kind of ironic, though, that men who will rail against the evils of affirmative action will be happy to receive affirmative action praise from a woman.)"

Is this just diarrhea of the mouth or does this make any sense to anyone here?"

Haley was responding to the (correct) manosphere advice that women should be supportive of their man's passions, pursuits and ego. She sees that as equivalent to false praise that a woman engages in simply to manipulate her man's ego. That's what she sees as "affirmative action," a false hand up to someone who doesn't deserve it.

She's totally off base, of course - I haven't seen anyone serious advocate that women praise incompetence and sloth in a man. Remember that the tone of the piece is arguing that most men don't deserve any praise, and the ones who do deserve to be resented for it, so the idea of giving good feelings to a man for his competence must be bogus. It's hypergamy at play.